alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<pre>

Exhibit 31.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned officer of Vote Power Corp. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that:

(i) the Quarterly Report  on Form 10-QSB/A of  the Company for the  quarter
ended September 30, 2005 , as amended, (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a)  or Section 15(d),  as applicable, of  the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

                      /s/   Inti Shaikh
                      ---------------------------
                      Inti Shaikh
                      CEO
                     (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated:  January 14, 2008



Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley
Act of 2002 the undersigned officer of Vote Power Corp. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that:

(i) the Quarterly Report  on Form 10-QSB/A of  the Company for the  quarter
ended September 30, 2005, as amended,  (the Report) fully complies with  the
requirements of Section 13(a)  or Section 15(d),  as applicable, of  the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

                        VOTE POWER CORPORATION
                        /S/ Inti Shaikh
                        ----------------------------
                        Inti Shaikh
                        Secretary/Treasurer
                        (Principal Financial Officer)


Dated:  January 14, 2008
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Fred C. Schulte, Chief Executive Officer of Elgin National Industries,
Inc., certify that:



| | 1. |  | This annual report on Form 10-K of Elgin National Industries, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | The information contained in this annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Elgin National Industries, Inc.
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 29, 2004



/S/    FREDC. SCHULTEFred C. Schulte Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5789

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALVARO MARIO CAYCEDO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-586)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael P. O'Connell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Preston Strom, Jr., United

States Attorney, Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alvaro Caycedo appeals from a district court sentence for

escape from a prison camp. Counsel filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Caycedo was notified of

his right to file an additional brief, and he has not done so. We

affirm.

Caycedo's counsel claims on appeal that the district court

erred in finding that prison camps were not sufficiently similar to

community centers or halfway houses such that the offense level reduction provided by United States Sentencing Commission, Sentencing

Guidelines, § 2P1.1(b)(3) (Nov. 1994), should apply. We find no

error in the district court's determination. See, e.g., United

States v. Stalbaum, 63 F.3d 537, 540 (7th Cir. 1995). Further, in

accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed the

entire record and have found no non-frivolous basis for appeal.

Therefore, we affirm the district court sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw

from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy

thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
3

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-2701 Directorate Identifier: 2016-NE-03-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

torque 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 10 $ 850.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 850

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37356-37361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18316]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 98-44]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of P.L. 104-164 dated 21 July 
1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 98-44, with attached transmittal, policy 
justification and sensitivity of technology.

    Dated: July 6, 1998.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 37357]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10JY98.004



[[Page 37358]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10JY98.005



[[Page 37359]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10JY98.006



[[Page 37360]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10JY98.007



[[Page 37361]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10JY98.008



[FR Doc. 98-18316 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
# Susquehanna’s Draughorne selected as Employee of the Quarter

/ Published Dec. 18, 2015
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, Nicholas Draughorne, distribution process worker for the Receiving Branch of Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Susquehanna, Pa., was named Employee of the Quarter for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015.  

Draughorne played a vital role in the responsibility of offloading and tallying more than 25,000 pieces of inbound freight delivered by 1,625 commercial carriers, and at least 500 intra-depot deliveries of thousands of re-warehoused material within the Eastern Distribution Center from July to September 2015.Additionally, Draughorne expended over 690 hours assisting his Branch while accomplishing the key DLA Distribution operational function of receiving material at the inbound receiving dock doors with a full understanding of the standardized processes.  Draughorne  accepted all items at the off-load tally stage and flawlessly performed a full visual inspection of all material delivered, while keeping up with Process Standardization and data input for job breakdown sheets.Draughorne’ s performance and work ethic, sparks unparalleled stages of productivity, accuracy, and efficiency within his work area and contributes directly to the overall success of DLA Distribution Susquehanna, PA.  His dedication and take charge attitude is evident to the entire Receiving Team and are essential elements of the Receiving Branch’s ability to support DLA customers worldwide.
How to Use Nicotine Gum video

AUDIO: Music without lyrics playing through the end of the video.

TITLE ARTCARD - TEXT ON SCREEN: How to Use Nicotine Gum

VISUALS: The title text is in a box. The background is animated with small colored squares (pieces of 

gum) and colored dots crossing diagonally behind the text box.

TEXT ON SCREEN: Begin using the nicotine gum...

VISUALS: A foil pack of nicotine gum rests against a book. An arm enters the frame, with the hand 

picking up a piece of the gum.

TEXT ON SCREEN: on your quit date.

VISUALS: The hand moves up toward a man’s open mouth and drops the gum into the mouth.

TEXT ON SCREEN: Bite down slowly... 

VISUALS: A mouth with teeth chews the gum. 

TEXT ON SCREEN: a few times until you have... 

VISUALS: Mouth continues to chew the gum.

TEXT ON SCREEN: a slight tingling in your mouth.

VISUALS: The man chews the gum. In the background, a series of zigzag lines, colored dots, and other 

geometric shapes suddenly appear and animate to represent tingling. 

TEXT ON SCREEN: Park the gum...

VISUALS: Man closes his mouth with the gum inside.

TEXT ON SCREEN: between your cheek and gum.

VISUALS: Man moves the gum between his cheek and gum inside his mouth.
TEXT ON SCREEN: Hold for a minute to absorb nicotine.

VISUALS: Man doesn’t move his mouth while the hands of a clock in the background move from 10:09 to

10:10.

TEXT ON SCREEN: Then repeat until tingling stops.

VISUALS: Man resumes chewing the gum.

TEXT ON SCREEN: Do not eat or drink for 15 minutes before or during use.

VISUALS: Various food, beverage, and flatware items make up a background graphic.

TEXT ON SCREEN: Proper use will help you avoid side effects...

VISUALS: Solid background.

TEXT ON SCREEN: and stay quit.

VISUALS: An arm with its hand in a “thumbs up” gesture enters the frame.

END ARTCARD 1 – TEXT ON SCREEN:

For more help using medicines to quit smoking

Call 1-800-QUIT-NOW

Visit CDC.gov/quit

VISUALS: The text is in a box. The background is animated with small colored squares (pieces of gum) 

and colored dots crossing diagonally behind the text box.

END ARTCARD 2 – TEXT ON SCREEN:

This video is a part of the SmokefreeVET partnership between the Department of Veterans Affairs and 

the National Cancer Institute’s Smokefree.gov Initiative.

CDC does not endorse any particular organization, product, or service.

VISUALS: Joint logos of the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention.
# C_2015138EN.01004602.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2015 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultra.air ultrafilter)

(Case T-377/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ultra.air ultrafilter - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 138/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, M. Teworte-Vey and A. Renvert, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 May 2013 (Case R 1100/2011-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH and ultra air GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 May 2013 (Case R 1100/2011-4) in so far as it concerns time control systems; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 May 2013 (Case R 1100/2011-4) in so far as it concerns time control systems;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders ultra air GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM and by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders ultra air GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM and by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

1

---
#### *Arnold, Respondent, v. City of Seattle, Petitioner,*

No. 91742-6.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71445-7-1, March 23, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 653. *Granted*September 30, 2015.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18306]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Montana State University-Bozeman; Notice of Decision on 
Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 98-010. Applicant: Montana State University-Bozeman, 
Bozeman, MT 59717. Instrument: Optical Helium Cryostat. Manufacturer: 
Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, C.I.S. 
Intended Use: See notice at 63 FR 12451, March 13, 1998.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides: (1) Rapid 
cool-down (30-60 min.), (2) minimal initial vacuum (10<SUP>-3</SUP> 
Torr), (3) portable operation and (4) low evaporation (2-3 liters per 
cooling cycle). The National Institute of Standards and Technology 
advised June 25, 1998 that (1) These capabilities are pertinent to the 
applicant's intended purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic instrument 
or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument 
for the applicant's intended use.
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured 
in the United States.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 98-18306 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# C_2016287EN.01000301.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-233/14) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 18 TFEU, 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Financial support for travel costs awarded to national students - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(2) - Derogation from the principle of equal treatment - Maintenance aid for studies consisting in student grants or student loans - Scope - Formal requirements of the application initiating proceedings - Coherent statement of the pleas in law))

(2016/C 287/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and C. Gheorghiu, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

1

---
Ameri can Institutes for Research Task Order 18: Study on Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

— C - 1 1695_03/15 

## Appendix C **. Pre**  **i nterview Survey for Districts and**  **Principals**Ameri can Institutes for Research Task Order 18: Study on Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

— C - 2 

# Study on Sustaining the **Positive Effects of Preschool Preinterview Survey for Districts and Principals**  American Institutes for Research (AIR), under contract with the Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) within the U.S. Department of Education, is conducting a study of practices in early elementary school to sustain the effects of preschool. The purpos e of the study is to document characteristics of programs and policies in early elementary school that support student growth and development, such as PK

– 3 alignment, differentiated instruction, and other programs designed to sustain the advantages of pres chool. This brief survey aims to gather some basic information in advance of our interview. Our research is focused on making connections between earl y elementary school and earlier preschool experiences that students may have had. Therefore this set of q uestions focuses on preschool and preschool - related data the district or school might collect. 1. Does your district [OR SCHOOL ] track which students have participated in preschool programs (e.g., those that intend to help prepare students for kindergarten)? _____ y es ______ no 2. If preschool participation is tracked, approximately what percentage of district [OR SCHOOL ] kindergartners attended preschool of any t ype? _________% a. We are interested in what ty pe of preschool programs those s tudents attended. What percentage of kindergartners in y our district [OR SCHOOL ] attended the following ty pes of preschool programs? Private preschools or nursery schools _______% Public state or district funded programs _______% For principals only: Preschool located at your school _______% Head Start _______%Ameri can Institutes for Research Task Order 18: Study on Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

— C - 3

3. If your district [OR SCHOOL ] tracks preschool participation, does the district [OR SCHOOL ] anal yz e student outcomes based on whether or not students attended preschool as students progress thr ough earl y elementary school? _____ y es **(GO TO NEXT QUESTION)** ______ no **(END)** a. If your district [OR SCHOOL ] analyzes outcomes based on preschool attendance, please describe your anal ys es. How do y ou compare students who attended presc hool versus those who did not? Which outcomes or assessments are used?

b. If your district [OR SCHOOL ] analyzes outcomes based on preschool attendance, what patterns do you see in the data?

**Thank you for providing this information!**
# C_2015213EN.01002203.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 April 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-536/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 213/40)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

1

---